This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Court documents filed by the U.S. Justice Department in the criminal case against Benghazi attack suspect Ahmed Abu Khatallah provide unprecedented details about the evolution of the assault and further shatter the Obama administration's initial claim that it sprouted from protests over an anti-Islam film.

The narrative that the video played a role continues to live on, with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton saying recently that some of the attackers may indeed have been influenced by the online video.

But the Justice Department's court filings make clear that at least those spearheading the attack were part of a "conspiracy," one that involved several members of the Ansar al-Sharia "Islamic extremist militia."

You Libs were claiming this guy was motivated by a Internet video while back.

Why would anyone other than (anti-Obama) Republicans continue to argue this point? I mean, you guys have been dying to be able to say, "See, I told you so" since the attack happened. So, to have something no matter how minute substantiate your position may be something for you (guys) to get all excite over, but for me the so-called narrative has been settled long ago.

Yes, initially the President and his Administration stated they believed an anti-Islamic video ignited the fury of Muslim Extremist which led to the attacks, but since then they'd stated consistently that their initial assessment was wrong. So, why you'd think Liberal Democrats would suddenly come in this thread and act as if they've been disproven is beyond me.

Why would anyone other than (anti-Obama) Republicans continue to argue this point? I mean, you guys have been dying to be able to say, "See, I told you so" since the attack happened. So, to have something no matter how minute substantiate your position may be something for you (guys) to get all excite over, but for me the so-called narrative has been settled long ago.

Yes, initially the President and his Administration stated they believed an anti-Islamic video ignited the fury of Muslim Extremist which led to the attacks, but since then they'd stated consistently that their initial assessment was wrong. So, why you'd think Liberal Democrats would suddenly come in this thread and act as if they've been disproven is beyond me.

Man, aren't you tired of being manipulated by dishonest Politicians ?

The night of the attack, BEFORE it was even over Hilary released a press report blaming the attack on a Internet Video.

She released that press statement 6 hours after the attack started.

So instead of calling in reinforcements, or working on a way to rescue those under attack, Obama and Hillary chose to spend time concocting some BS false narrative about a protest

The NEXT DAY, our State Department sent out a Communique to the Libyan Government stating the attackers were Ansar al Sharia.

So they DID know it was terrorist.

4 Days after the attack Hilary Clinton stood in front of the caskets and repeated the lie about a Internet video.

5 days after the attack Susan Rice went on 5 Talk shows and continued to perpetuate the lie about a Internet video and also said the attack arose out of a " PROTEST ".

The Obama administration chose to politicize the deaths of four Americans that they were in charge of protecting.

They chose to perpetuate a lie to not only American citizens but to the families who lost loved ones and continue to this day to perpetuate that lie.

Why would anyone other than (anti-Obama) Republicans continue to argue this point? I mean, you guys have been dying to be able to say, "See, I told you so" since the attack happened. So, to have something no matter how minute substantiate your position may be something for you (guys) to get all excite over, but for me the so-called narrative has been settled long ago.

Yes, initially the President and his Administration stated they believed an anti-Islamic video ignited the fury of Muslim Extremist which led to the attacks, but since then they'd stated consistently that their initial assessment was wrong. So, why you'd think Liberal Democrats would suddenly come in this thread and act as if they've been disproven is beyond me.

Nice cover job, my friend!

Originally Posted by americanwoman

So there is absolutely no evidence this woman, whom you called a slut, did this but you are ready to take someone's word as evidence. Guess you don't think witch hunts have to end when it's going after the certain people.

Actually it's quite sad. The lefts unwillingness to even criticize their leaders for this lie is sickening. It was never criminal, but it was unethical and that is what we have is an unethical regime and the left in America would rather have that then an ounce of integrity.

The night of the attack, BEFORE it was even over Hilary released a press report blaming the attack on a Internet Video.

She released that press statement 6 hours after the attack started.

So instead of calling in reinforcements, or working on a way to rescue those under attack, Obama and Hillary chose to spend time concocting some BS false narrative about a protest

The NEXT DAY, our State Department sent out a Communique to the Libyan Government stating the attackers were Ansar al Sharia.

So they DID know it was terrorist.

4 Days after the attack Hilary Clinton stood in front of the caskets and repeated the lie about a Internet video.

5 days after the attack Susan Rice went on 5 Talk shows and continued to perpetuate the lie about a Internet video and also said the attack arose out of a " PROTEST ".

The Obama administration chose to politicize the deaths of four Americans that they were in charge of protecting.

They chose to perpetuate a lie to not only American citizens but to the families who lost loved ones and continue to this day to perpetuate that lie.

So why you Libs keep defendeding these scum bags is beyond me.

I'm not defending anyone. I'm just saying that to expect Democrats - whether extremely liberal or somewhere in the middle - to come out and say "you were right" is stupid considering that Democrats/the Obama Administration have already admitted that the Benghazi attack was, in fact, a terrorist attack. Here's a timeline from CNN using the President, SoS Clinton and the President's Press Sec's own words from 09/11/12 through 09/19/12. It's clear that at first the Obama Administration went from saying "we're not sure what led to the attack" to "it was an anti-Islamic video that sparked Muslim extremist's anger that led to the attack" to "it was a terrorist attack," but there's no denying that the Administration eventually admitted that it was a terrorist attack despite the fact that it took them over a week to "investigate" and "get their facts (..or "lie" if that how you wish to characterize things...)" together.

I think what you Republicans and the rest of the nation should be more concerned about isn't what narrative was initially presented but rather did the Obama Administration have any indication of coordinated terror attacks to take place on or about 09/11/2012? Why was their such perceived ineptness or the lack of for a quick, counter-response? What were the stumbling blocks to getting our defense forces quickly and decisively engaged and why? As well as, what can be done to prevent such an act from happening again? (Of course, there have already been at least 13 hearings on the matter which have brought much of these such issues to light.)

Sidenote: If Republicans were truly upset about the loss of American lives during this on-going War on Terror outside the field of battle, they'd have been just as upset with the number of Americans who died during the GWB Administration from terror attacks on U.S. Embassy/Consulate offices as they are over the Benghazi attack. Clearly, they aren't. The only thing that matters here is: 1) the Benghazi attack happened on the 10th anniversary of 9/11 where American defensive posture should have been fortified; and 2) it was an attack under a Democratic President.